Dpanel Container Update

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not state whether the change requires a container restart, whether it is reversible, what permissions are needed, or how existing config not mentioned in 'option' is treated. The note that 'option 结构与面板一致' hints at the payload shape but discloses nothing about runtime behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before listing affected fields. Nothing is padded, though it is under-specified rather than truly concise in the informative sense.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, a free-form nested 'option' object, 0% schema coverage, and 2 required params, the description should do far more. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the missing semantics for 'md5' and 'option', plus the absence of any behavioral or safety context, leave the definition materially incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that 'option' mirrors the panel's structure — a hint, but not a usable spec for a free-form object with additionalProperties:true. The required 'md5' parameter is never explained at all, leaving the agent to guess it identifies the container.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (更新) and resource (容器配置) and enumerates the updatable areas (重启策略/环境变量/端口等), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not, however, contrast itself with near-siblings such as dpanel_container_commit or dpanel_compose_container_ctrl, so it falls short of full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisite conditions, and no warning about side effects. The only guidance is implicit in the name and the field list. An agent must infer that this is the tool for modifying an existing container's runtime configuration.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.